5.0L is not enough? Buy a GT500.

 

5.0 is enough for me, hell 4.6 is enough for me but 5.0 has a much better ring to it
why would we want the mustang to be a 3900lb behemoth?

 

Behemoths make cool sounds and do obnoxiously awesome things.
I'm with you on the 4.6 and 5.0. Every time I drive my car I'm reminded that it's the fastest car I've ever had the pleasure of owning. If I can hold out for a used 5.0 though... that'd be nice in a few years.

 

Weight doesn't bother me too much. IMO we should have the same if not more CID than GM and/or MOPAR offers. If doing so approaches the same weight; no problem. I'm sure the FORD would still give them a run for their money.

NOOOOOOO ... 5.0 is NOT enough ... although I agree the bigger bore is better.

 

Maybe I will ... when they change the ugly new body style AND they offer a bigger motor (or at least a bigger bore motor). Ford should be able to do a 351 CID 2-V/3-V/4-V without any problems, especially if they drop the 4.0 V-6 in place of a 3.7 that gets 30 MPG+. This should give them plenty of CAFE room to play.

I do like the 5.4 but I hate having to buy a Shelby to get it. I wish they'd reconfigure the current 5.4 giving it the newer 5.0 (3.700) bore with less stroke. The torque would still be sufficient but the RPM(s) would turn up faster and the bigger bore would move more fuel volume. Sounds like a great idea to me.

It wouldn't surprise me if I did wind up with a GT-500 ragtop.

 

Yeah, who wants a POS 400HP 5.0? They should really bring back the old 335HP 428 Cobra Jet, cause it has a bigger displacement and also bigger than what GM and MOPAR offers. Who cares if its heavier! I'd also like to see the Mustang get up to about 4500lbs. That means it'll weigh more than the Camaro and Challenger and thus be more car than them. The Mustang really needs more weight.

 

Hi TopCat

I'm not exactly on the front lines, i'm actually in Australia, so pretty far from any lines

But I am pretty close to Ford Australia

Will be happy to let you all know how things are going if I come across anything.

 

Wow it starts on FEB 1. What a birthday present.

 

Just for good measure, they should add IRS for better weight distribution; so instead of 90:10 front end bias, it would be 85:15.



CP?

 

Don't forget, Ford can always bring back the straight front axle and a 3-on-the-tree transmission to help offset the weight gains of the all-iron big block engine in the nose. Result: a 'Stang that handles turns like Thor's hammer. Now if there were a aluminum block version of Ford's 6.2 V8, then maybe...

 

 

One item which has been proven time and time again by Ford is with the introduction of new products there are unforeseen problems which develop and the excited public winds up paying the price and dealing with the inconveniences. Considering Ford's past history with the Mustang and for all the nostalgia of the legendary 5.0 I would not buy a Mustang with the new 5.0 version until it is proven under average use and conditions, at least not for the first year. Now, I don't claim it will happen, hopefully it will not, but the probability is there.

Having been a ginnie pig for Ford a few times and the experience of dealing with dealers to correct my so called imaginary issues, the back and forth, and most important, the loss of excitement for the new car not even taking its cost into account, is something I can do without.

 

That's a risk everyone takes with every car they buy.

Lemons happen.

TR3650's also happen and those weren't even new. The 3v 4.6 has had problems for people on their 05-10's... and those are pretty old in general terms.

 

Trust me, those guys (and gals) are working days, nights, weekends, and holidays to make sure this puppy is darn near perfect. I have always been a skeptic "wait and see" person like yourself regarding new models, but I have no problem putting down the money on this one.

Before I get bashed, please note that I said near perfect... I am a realist, too.

 

Have you ever heard the expression 'work smarter, not harder'? Ford is working smarter by going overhead multi-cam on V8s... I want a small displacement (5.0) mod 32V that easily spins to 7k and NOT some 70's relic big displacement motor that redlines at 5k.

 

Exactly, I'd rather Ford NOT take a broad axe approach to performance. Acceleration is a product of mass vs power and can be addressed from either end of the equation. While simply stuffing ever bigger motors into ever heavier cars can eventually get the same acceleration level, it is not without significant costs and detriment to many other areas:

• Handling
• Braking
• Economy/efficiency
• Emissions

While in the '60's and early seventies when at least the latter two weren't much of a factor and the former often given little more than lip service, today is a very different world and today's performance cars need to best compete in that world, not one of 40 years ago.

I think Ford's approach is better and generally bearing fruit and is better situated for future development than its fast but fat competitors.

 

A) GM LS7 (N/A 2v OHV 7.0L 500hp V8) 7000 rpm redline

B) Ford GT500 5.4 (S/C 4v DOHC 5.4L 540hp V8) 6000 rpm redline


Lol, just say'n

Personally I'll take that 6.2, confingured properly it will spin to 7 grand and in the realm of street engines even a well developed 2 valver has more than enough airflow to make stoopid crazy power. Honestly if the 5.0 delivers even at 390 or better HP (400+ hype) it will be one of Ford's great engines. However, I can think on more than few good reasons why a lower reving bigger displacement V8 wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

I don't think rhumb was comparing Chevrolet to Ford. He was comparing old school to new school engine characteristics.

 

I wasn't addressing Rhumb, just poking fun at VAin's remark. Neither approach is right or wrong or better or worse (again pointing to GM, thier 2v OHV engines do get alot of respect).

 

Big engines do not necessarily negate the other performance and handling factors above. Mostly it depends on the engineering applied to a given model. The BOSS 302 was both a handler and a performer. The 69 and 70 Mach I cars with their 351(s) were also nice handling and performance based cars although 2 different 351(s) were sold between both years. I know they were because I was around when they were sold NEW and I've driven them in the past.

Taking a jab at 428CJ cars is cheap; if folks today could get a 428 CID engine in a Mustang at an affordable price they'd be all over it.

If you're worried about fuel economy and emissions then buy a Volkswagen or something along those lines. I can never understand why folks consider fuel economy when buying a Mustang ... They've never been economical if they've had any kind of 60(s) era performance; not even the V-8 Mustang II(s).

If you want a performer with 60(s)-era muscle then that is what you need to buy. If you want something else I suggest looking beyond the Mustang. It's really hard to have it all and/or a little bit of all the best in one car that is at least affordable for most of us.